SA has no idea of the consequences of siding with an autocratic war criminal

A seemingly non-negotiable principle of SA’s foreign policy is to be on the side of autocrats and dictators and habitually anti-West, regardless of the issues. Cosy relations with the likes of Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam, Sudan's Omar al Bashir, Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe have characterised our foreign policy under all presidents since Nelson Mandela.

With the present government enamoured with a rabid war criminal like Vladimir Putin, we see a continuation of this policy with all its untoward consequences. But being obsessed with a myopic partisan ideology and habitually hobnobbing with dictators comes at a high price, particularly by degrading SA’s erstwhile high international prestige, role and status, as well as stunting our all-important economic development.

In short, this means SA’s prevailing foreign policy is totally out of sync with its intrinsic national interests, with the government unwilling or unable to do anything about it. According to ANC declarations, SA will “stick to its principles” and refuse to take sides in this war, despite blatantly illegal and murderous Russian war crimes. Hence, it abstained from voting against Russia, in the company of a motley minority of 34 other UN members, in the March 2 General Assembly resolution. (Only five states voted against, while 141 voted in favour).

International relations and co-operation minister Naledi Pandor issued a statement demanding Russia withdraw from Ukraine. This clearly upset the Marxist, anti-West faction in the ANC foreign policy establishment, who subsequently prevailed upon President Cyril Ramaphosa to contradict the statement, no doubt to assuage Russian and local communists’ displeasure.

For many, both inside and outside the country, this was a controversial decision resulting in a rare local public debate about our wayward foreign policy. What emerged was a conflict of opinion between the ideologues and realists in the foreign policy establishment. A hopeful sign, but unfortunately of little consequence to our fossilised ANC foreign policymakers.

All along the ideologues accepted that being in cahoots with Russia was in SA’s best interests, notwithstanding the normative constitutional dictates and founding moral principles concerning respect for human rights, sovereignty, democracy and territorial integrity.

What followed was indeed a case study of expedient, if not downright “Walter Mitty” diplomacy. First, Ramaphosa rushed to phone Putin, apparently to bask in the reflected glory and honour of speaking to the “great man”. Afterwards, he subserviently thanked “His Excellency President Vladimir Putin” for taking his call. At the same time, our great negotiator refused official engagement with the local Ukrainian ambassador, as well as with ambassadors of the EU, our biggest trading partner.

In the latest UN General Assembly meeting on Ukraine, SA persisted with its pro-Russian pseudo-neutrality but got a humiliating bloody nose after presenting a draft resolution excluding Russia from all blame. This was yet another national embarrassment as this resolution shamefully echoed Kremlin propaganda, casting doubt as to where exactly SA’s UN diplomats got their instructions from.

Ramaphosa’s aim seems to be to push himself forward as facilitator in the conflict, as he recalled at length in parliament his past experiences as a negotiator. This can only be described as a delusion of grandeur given that SA’s international status over almost three decades of uninterrupted misrule has declined to insignificance.

While most of the world has reached out to end the horrible and unthinkable human and material misery inflicted upon the Ukrainian people and their country, Ramaphosa has offered them naught for their comfort, except pretending to be a great negotiator reporting for service. Belatedly, after strong criticism, he did eventually reject war as an instrument of policy, and signalled his wish to also speak to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, impressed perhaps by the latter‘s sterling performances addressing the US Senate and the British, Canadian, Israeli, Italian and Japanese parliaments and German Bundestag.

The pièce de résistance of this kindergarten diplomacy has been Ramaphosa's attempt to blame Nato for being deaf to earlier warnings against eastward expansion, ignoring Russia‘s brutal invasions of, inter alia, Finland, Latvia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the previous century and not realising that Nato membership is their safeguard against future Ukrainian-type invasions.

Of course, good relations with countries like Russia are important, provided they are based on pragmatism and national interest rather than sentimental anachronistic ideological predilections. However, the ANC still acts as a captive of the Cold War and as if it still owes permanent feudal fealty to Russia, even when the Soviet Union is passe and with communism on the ash heap of history. While the world must perforce deal with a dangerous, Putinist Russia, the ANC obstinately refuses to accept that its subservient posture is not in SA’s best interests.

Lamentably, the global moral imperatives that saw the ANC to power no longer guide SA’s foreign policy. Like the apartheid regime, Putinist Russia today commits a crime against humanity in Ukraine, and the ANC government is supporting it.

The war in Ukraine may yet lead to unthinkable consequences for the world at large. What is taking place there is really a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Putin does not want a democratic Ukraine on his doorstep exposing his bland authoritarianism and potentially precipitating a “colour revolution”. With China, he wants a totally new world order that they can dominate and “hasten American decline”.

Given the solidarity in the democratic West and the sluggish performance of the Russian forces in Ukraine, Putin will probably end up losing the war. SA policymakers are demonstrably myopic in not realising the consequences for having sided with an autocratic war criminal. Like apartheid SA, Russia will probably end up an isolated global pariah.

The way in which SA has handled the Ukraine crisis has once again laid bare the government’s diplomatic deficiencies, particularly the lack of clear-headed leadership and prescient decision-making. An independent pragmatic SA foreign policy based on intrinsic national interests is what is required, rather than one that is subservient to the preferences and dictates of Moscow and Beijing.

That is the only way we can regain international status and respect. This will not change unless our foreign policy-making is democratised and professionalised rather than being monopolised by a small clique of badly trained, inexperienced ideologues.

• Gerrit Olivier, a former SA ambassador in Russia and Kazakhstan, is emeritus professor at Pretoria University. Michèle Olivier is a consultant in international law.